Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-19-1988) MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 19, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Michael Schubach. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comms. Ingell, Peirce (both excused absences) Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the minutes of January 5, 1988, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-2, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PROVIDE A THREE-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SEVE.NJEEN-FOOT ..PARK.ING SETBACK AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARAT ION AT 3220 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 123, SHAKESPEARE TRACT. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Compton, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19302 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 330 CULPER COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK L, TRACT 2002. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Compton, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-6, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO STUDY THE ISSUE OF TOXIC WASTE CITY-WIDE VIA A LITERATURE SEARCH, INTERVIEWS WITH LONG-TIME RESIDENTS, AND POSSIBLY SOIL SAMPLES IF DEEMED NECESSARY. No objections; so ordered. MOTION BY Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 11, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST. No objections; so ordered. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 2 MOTION by Comm. DeB e lli s, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Policy Statement P.C. 87-2, A POLICY STA TE MENT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING CONDOMINIUM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Brian Steele, 239 29th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked whether the issue of 17-foot setbacks would be addressed at this meeting. Chmn. Compton noted that the 17-foot setback issue would be discussed in relation to open space and smaller lots; however, no decision is to be made tonight. Mr. Steele stated that his lot is 30 feet by 80 feet, and he feels the 17-foot setback requi rement is unr e asona ble . He noted tha t he has had t o halt a ny co nstruct ion plans he m ight have had wh il e wai ting for a decision to be made on t his issue. He st ated that by hav ing to provi de t he se t back, green space is lessened which detracts t otally from the City. Mr. Steele asked for an update on what is happening with this issue. Chmn. Compton e xp la in ed the issues which are to be studied, noting that small lots will be taken into cons ider a t ion. Also to be studied are those lots having alleys of only 10 to 15 feet in width. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the difficulties with narrow alleys, stating that the turning radius requirements cannot be met. However, t}us. entire matter will be studied. He stated, though, that the issue of the 17-foot setback will be brought back to the Commission for further study at a future time. Mr. Lough explained to Mr. Steele that his Jot does not fall within the category of very small lots to be studied. He stated that the discussion will consider lots of 30' by 70' or less. He noted that Mr. Steele could request that larger lots be included in the study. Susan McFarland, 31 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She noted concern over the seventeen-foot setback r e quir e ment, especia ll y in those areas having alleys behind the Jots. She noted the diffi cu lt y a ssoc ia t ed with drawing plans which conform to all the new requirements. She r equest ed t hat t he Com mi ssion also study lots of 30 by 95 feet as well as the smaller lots. Ms. McFarland stated that there are myriad design problems when the 17-foo t setback requirement, open space requirement, and front, back, and sideyard setback require men t s are all taken into account. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR" (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED) (CONTINUED FROM 12/1/&7, 11/17/87, AND 11/4/&7) Mr. Schubach gave staff report da t ed January 12, 1988. This matte r was continued from the mee t ing of December 1, 1987, t o a ll ow ample ti me for t he public hearing for the ATS F Ra il road Right of Way EIR , which was schedul ed for t he same me eting. Addi t ional information was provided to the Commission including past staff reports. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE3 Pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission, the proposed resolution has been revised to include a section dealing with parking. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach stated that it became necessary to differentiate between restaurants and snack bars, explaining that shops selling items such as ice cream or cookies only, would probably not need as much parking as a full restaurant. He stated, however, that a condition has been added to the Resolution stating that: ''The parking requirements for a snack bar and/or snack shop shall be the same as that for a restaurant unless it can be shown to the Planning Commission that the characteristics of the building, its location, and other mitigating factors result in less parking being necessary for the business." Mr. Schubach noted that the Planning Commission is being given more discretion as to what constitutes a snack bar and what constitutes a restaurant. Public Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens who appeared either in favor of or in opposition to this matter, the Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Rue favored the idea of requiring conditional use permits for snack bars, stating that each individual establishment should be studied on a case-by-case basis to determine parking and traffic needs. Chmn. Compton also favored CUPs for these establishments, noting that potential problems can be addressed at the six-month review hearings. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staff's recommendation to approve Resolution P.C. 87-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "RESTAURANT" AND "SNACK BAR AND/OR SNACK SHOP" AND APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comms. Ingell, Peirce CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /118989 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1452 LOMA DRIVE Chmn. Compton stated that he would abstain from this issue, noting that he is the architect of record on the project. As only two commissioners remained on the dais, MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to continue this item to the next meeting. Mr. Lough explained that two commissioners would constitute a quorum; however, the vote would need to be 2-0 either way for this project. He stated that if the public hearing is opened and continued, other commissioners would be unable to participate at the next hearing unless they viewed the tapes and read the minutes of this meeting. He stated that it is up to the discretion of the Commission whether to continue the matter or not. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE4 Mr. Schubach stated that this project is clear cut and complies with all the requirements, noting that there is nothing unusual about the project. SECOND TO THE MOTION WITl--IDRA WN by Comm. De Bellis. (MOTION DIES DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.} Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 13, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of November 4, 1987, approved Resolution P.C. 87-63 for a three-unit condominium and vesting parcel map subject to conformance with open space requirements. The applicant has subm itted a new design for the proposed condominium to conform with planning and zoning requirements. The approval of the new design is subject to approval by the Planning Commission. Therefore, approval of Resolution P.C. 88-8 will supercede Resolution P.C. 87-63. The project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 4000 square feet, 40 feet by 100 feet. The size of the proposed units is approximately 1900 square feet. Each unit will contain two bedrooms and two and a half baths. The design of the structure is two floors and a mezzanine over a partially subterranean garage. The development will provide two enclosed tandem parking spaces per unit and two guest parking spaces. Only two guest parking spaces are required for the development since no on-street parking is lost due to curb cuts. Loma Drive has a red curb to prohibit any on­ street parking. The units conform to the open space requirements. Each unit will provide 300 square feet of countable private open space. The units will provide a 134 square foot deck on the second floor and a 166 square foot deck accessed from the mezzanine. The units also have a 30 square foot deck on the first floor. The development will provide 81 square feet of common open space on the ground level. Storage area for the units is located adjacent to the garages. Trash facilities are provided in an area along the driveway. The plans conform to all other planning and ·zoning requirements and are consistent with the surrounding area. Documents concerning the public noticing were provided to the Commissioners. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map 1118989, subject to conditions specified in 'the resolution. Comm. Rue noted that the Residential Zoning Analysis report did not specify the proposed lot coverage. He wanted to ensure that the lot coverage did not exceed 65 percent. Mr. Schubach explained that that information was inadvertently omitted from the report; however, approval of the project would be contingent upon the lot coverage requirement being met. Public Hearing opened at 8:00 P.M. by Comm. Rue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE5 Bill Gussey, 413 1/2 Ridgemont Street, El Segundo, representing the architect, addressed the Commission. He discussed the open space, stating that it has been checked several times, and the project is at 65 percent lot coverage. Mr. Gussey felt that this project is quite good, and he displayed several color renderings depicting the project itself and the proposed landscaping for the project. He noted that landscaping and planter boxes will be utilized to break up the length and mass of the north side of the building. Comm. Rue noted that he favored this proposal over the last one presented; however, he asked whether the open space in the back area could be saved. Mr. Gussey stated that this project is in compliance with the 65 percent lot coverage requirement; the open space in the back slopes down and faces the trailer park, and it was determined to be space which could be utilized. He felt that use of this space will enhance the building appearance from the east. Comm. Rue asked who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping in that area. Mr. Schubach noted that that particular area is not owned by the applicant, nor is it a part of this project. He noted, however, that low-maintenance plants could be planted, thereby eliminating the need for constant care. Mr. Gussey noted that the area now is either unmaintained brushy plants or sand. Something can be planted there such as ice plant. Tom Edwards, 1406 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He asked to see the color renderings and asked Mr. Gussey for clari fa€ation of the project. He then noted that his barbeque is one inch over the property line. He questioned whether the proposed wooden f ence could be constructed to abut his barbeque, rather than having to take out the barbeque altogether. Mr. Lough stated that that issue would best be discussed between the two property owners, explaining that this was not the proper place or time to be suggesting compromises such as this one. Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Comm. Rue. Comm. DeBellis asked whether the proposed garages conform to all zoning and building requirements, noting that they appear to be quite narrow. Mr. Schubach replied that the garages comply. He explained that there are so many narrow lots in the City, that garages are required to be only eight and a half feet wide. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staff's recommendation to approve Resolution P.C. 88-8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #18989 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1452 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 16, HISS ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Rue None Chmn. Compton Comms. Ingell, Peirce PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE6 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW DECK TO ENCROACH INTO SIDEYARD SETBACK AT 845 AND 845 1/2 EIGHTH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 13, 1988. On November 19, 1987, the Environmental Staff Review Committee approved a negative declaration for the project and recommended denial of the variance. This project involves the construction of a deck 10 feet by 21.5 inches protruding into the side yard from the second story. The applicants have built a deck 2.5 feet by 24 feet without obtaining the proper permits. Now the applicants are proposing to reduce the size of the deck to 10 feet by 21.5 inches, although any projection of the deck will require a variance. The existing dwelling, established on a 40-foot by 75-foot lot, has a side yard setback of three feet. Current zoning regulation, however, would require a four-foot setback on this R-2 lot. Therefore, this structure is already nonconforming. Based on this information, it is in the opinion of staff that this lot does not contain exceptional or extraordinary dimensions that would warrant this variance request. In addition, this variance is not necessary for a property right enjoyed by others and denied to this property owner. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request for a variance. Comm. DeBellis asked whether the applicants had submitted any information in regard to the four required findings. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. Chmn. Compton asked whether the issue of this deck being considered as an architectural treatment to the facade of the building was ever discussed with the applicant. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that further clarification and definition of "architectural treatment" is within the purview of the Building Department. Comm. Rue asked whether there are any health and safety concerns related to this project. Mr. Schubach noted that there may be concerns regarding the walls being of a one-hour fire construction material if there is to be an encroachment closer than three feet to the property line. Mr. Lough noted that the Planning Commission may not approve a project based on Building Code amendments. Therefore, it this project is approved, it is subject to compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the Board of Appeals. Comm. DeBellis noted concern that this information was not addressed prior to the applicant's having to come before the Planning Commission with a variance request. He felt it is moot for the Planning Commission to approve a variance which might not be in compliance with building code requirements. Mr. Schubach stated that if there is a potential for approval of the request, the Building Director could come to the next meeting to answer any questions that the Commission might have. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 7 Mr. Schubach continued by explaining certa.in requirements of the Building Code, stating that it does not oppose construction up to the property line; however, a certain type of construction must be done. In other words, the applicant may be able to have something which protrudes somewhat, but it cannot be built of wood since it must be solid without any openings and of at least a one-hour construction type. Mr. Schubach stated that the wood deck might need to be modified to comply with the building code; therefore, it would be best to continue this matter to the next meeting so that the Building Director could be present. Chmn. Compton noted that the minutes of the staff review meeting indicate that Mr. Grove felt that there is a possibility for a scaled-down version of this project to be approved. Public Hearing opened at 8:21 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Douglas Strickland, 845 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is new to the area and did not realize that he needed a building permit for this project. He stated that his is a 40 by 70 foot lot situated near a blank wall. He wanted to be able to see the ocean view from the bedroom. He wants to do whatever is necessary to keep the sliding door and have as large a balcony as is legally permissible. Mr. Strickland stated that even a plant shelf would be acceptable. He just wanted to be able to go outside to get some fresh air. Comm. DeBellis asked about the sliding door. Mr. Strickland stated that there was a small window in the area of what is now the five foot six inch sliding glass door. Mr. Strickland stated that he has discussed this matter with people in the Planning Department, and he was informed that it might be possible to classify the deck as an architectural projection since this is a small lot. Mr. Strickland stated that other residences in the surrounding area have decks very similar to the one at issue here. He passed out three photographs depicting those similar decks in the area. He asked why those decks have been allowed and his is not. Chmn. Compton explained to the applicant that there are many nonconforming buildings in the City which were built many years ago. Those are existing conditions which are considered fire hazards. Mr. Strickland stated that what he would like to do is keep the sliding door and as much of the balcony as possible so that he can see outside. Comm. Rue asked about the sliding glass door. Mr. Strickland stated that he once worked in construction so he installed the sliding door himself, unaware that a permit was necessary. He stated that he still has all the dry wall material and has not yet completely finished the project because he has been waiting for a building inspector to come out and look at the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 8 Comm. Rue did not feel that the sliding door is a problem; the only problem appears to be with the deck. He noted concern that if the variance is granted, the deck could only be 16 to 18 inches wide. If this is the case, he felt it might be in the best interest of the City to make this more of an architectural treatment as opposed to a deck. Maraya Strickland, 845 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and asked that she be allowed to keep her deck, stating that she keeps her plants on it. She further noted that a great deal of money has been spent on this entire matter, and she would hate to have to tear it down. She would at least like to keep a deck of six feet by 16 inches so she can keep the plants on it. She stated that the deck is very attractive and makes the property look better. Chmn. Compton stated that he understood the problem here, but he noted difficulty in making the four findings necessary to grant a variance. Public Hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. DeBellis thought that there were no openings allowed within three feet of a sideyard. Since the sideyard is only two and a half feet, the sliding door may pose a problem. He noted that there was an existing window; however, he questioned whether enlarging the opening was permissible. He noted concern over the entire process here, stating that possibly neither the sliding door nor the deck is allowed by the Building Department. Comm. Rue agreed that the deck is attractive; however, he did not feel that the four findings could be made. He hoped that something could be done in the way of architectural treatment. He suggested that an alternative be worked out with the Building Department. Comm. DeBellis asked whether a plant shelf would be possible without a variance. Mr. Schubach explained that the definitions regarding architectural treatments and buttresses are very vague. He suggested that the Commission vote on this matter. The Building Department can then be requested to suggest a reasonable alternative for this project so that there can be some architectural features. Mr. Lough stated that if the question is one of interpretation, the Commission might consider continuing this matter to the next meeting. Mr. Schubach stated that if there are questions regarding the Building Code and architectural features, he would recommend a continuance so that the Building Director could be available to answer questions. Mr. Lough suggested that if the matter is continued, that it be continued to a date certain so that the matter does not need to be renoticed. Comm. DeBellis stated that he did not favor a continuance. He felt that all necessary information should have been provided beforehand. He did not like the process to which this project has been subjected. Regarding the variance, he could not make the necessary findings. He stated that if the Building Director can provide an alternative, a variance would not be necessary. Comm. Rue agreed that the four findings cainnot be made. He felt that a solution needs to come from the Building Department, and he suggested that a statement be sent to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE9 Building Department requesting a workable solution on behalf of the applicant. Comm. DeBellis stated that no matter what action is taken, the applicant will still need to go to the Building Department; therefore, the applicant should be taking this matter up at the Building Department level. Chmn. Compton stated that he had no objection to continuing this matter; however, he did not feel it would make that much difference one way or another to continue it. Comm. DeBellis stated that the findings cannot be made; therefore, he would like to see the applicant pursue whatever is possible through the Building Department. He stated that he has no problem with the concept of an architectural projection. Chmn. Compton asked the applicant if he had any objection to a continuance of this matter. Mr. Strickland stated that he had no objection to the matter being continued. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to continue this matter to the first meeting in February so that the Building Director could be available to answer questions and obtain input on this matter from the Planning Commission in regard to an interpretation. Comm. DeBellis noted his objection to the continuing of this matter. There being no other objections; so ordered. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TICKET SALES ESTABLISHMENTS (SPECIAL EVENT) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 12, 1988. The Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of January 7, 1988, recommended that the Planning Commission prepare a negative declaration for this project. The City Council and the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a text amendment which will require a conditional use permit for establishments which sell special event tickets, e.g., concerts and sporting events. The zoning code presently allows ticket brokers in C-1 zones. No conditional use permit is required. The C-2 zone is a more appropriate zone for ticket sale establishments. During recent public hearings for a proposed zone change for a property adjacent to the Music Plus, several residents spoke to the Planning Commission and City Council and testified about problems existing at the site related to the sale of special event tickets. The primary concerns included overnight camping, loitering, and noise. The Planning Department studied their concerns and determined that several people were camping out in front of the ticket outlet the night before tickets went on sale for a popular event. People were loitering in the adjacent residential areas and creating excessive noise. It is anticipated that a conditional use permit for ticket sales will establish conditions on an establishment to eliminate the associated problems. Conditions will include PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 prohibiting overnight camping and the hours of operation. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution. PAGElO Public Hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens who appeared either in favor of or in opposition to this matter, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to adopt Resolution P.C. 88-10, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SELL SPECIAL EVENT TICKETS TO THE C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 10. No objections; so ordered. Recess taken from 8:48 P.M. until 8:57 P.M. REZONE OF AREAS 1, lA, AND 1B FROM R-3 TO R-2 AREA 1 --(Bordered on the west by The Strand; on the east by Hermosa A venue; on the south by 8th Street; and on the north by 10th Street) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 12, 1988. He stated for the record that the public noticing was done and submitted to the Easy Reader informing that the public hearing would take place this evening. He stated that all neighbors within 300 feet of the subject areas were given notice, and an affidavit was prepared stating that the notices were sent. He noted that copies of all applicable noticing documentation have been attached to the staff report. Mr. Schubach suggested that each of the three areas be discussed separately in order to avoid confusion. Mr. Schubach stated that the first recommendation is to rezone Area 1 from R-3, multiple-family residential to R-2, two-family residential, except for Lot 25 of Block 10 of 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. Mr. Schubach gave statistical data on Area 1. He stated that according to the general plan, the subject area should be zoned to R-2, two-family residential. The rezoning would also be in accord with advisory measure EE passed by the electorate in 1980. Under R-2 zoning, a maximum of one unit per lot could be constructed. If two of the 30- foot by 95-foot lots were assembled, a total of three units could be constructed; three of the 30-foot by 80-foot lots assembled would yield a total of four units. There is a mixture of old and new units which would be nonconforming if the zoning is changed to R-2. However 67 percent of all existing units were constructed more than 30 years ago which is generally an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. Also, as noted in the statistical data, some lots will have nonconforming uses under either R-3 or R-2 zoning. Lot 25 of Block 10 of 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract is zoned R-3, medium density designated; however, it is developed in conjunction with the C-2 zoned, commercially used lots fronting on Hermosa A venue. This lot should be general plan amended and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 11 rezoned for commercial use in the near future. Chmn. Compton noted the importance of this area, stating that he feels the rezoning could have an impact on the downtown area in regard to the amount of population permitted to live near the downtown area. Public Hearing for Area 1 opened at 9:06 P .M. by Chmn. Compton. Susan McFarland, 31 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She reminded the Commission that the current number of dwelling units per acre is 41 in the area, well within the guidelines of high density. She stated that 30-foot by 80-foot lots are the Strand lots, compared to the walk-down streets where the lots are 30 by 90 feet. She continued by discussing various lot sizes in the subject area. Ms. McFarland stated that if this area is downzoned to R-2, the square footage requirements will change. She continued by discussing the number of units which would be allowed under the new zoning. She stated that the area would actually be reduced to single-family use because of the minimum square footage requirements. She noted that this area is adjacent to a commercial use, and she asked if the Commission really wants to make this zoning change. She stated that this particular proposal is somewhat questionable. Ms. McFarland felt that if the area is rezoned to R-2, it will not lead to the improvement of property; it could possibly increase the number of bootlegs, because as single-family homes are constructed, bootleg uses could spring up. She noted that in such cases, there probably will not be adequate parking. She also felt that it is possible that property improvements will be done without the required permits. Ms. McFarland noted concern over the wording used in the letter sent out to citizens. She pointed out, however, that this would be a decrease in possible use and because this area is adjacent to a commercial area, which is not necessarily more desirable to live in, even if it is called R-1, and she would assume that there would be a loss of property value. She noted that the new State law addresses the issue of compensation. She noted that the letter she received stated that the issues must be brought up at the hearing; if they are not, those issues may not be addressed at a later time in court. Ms. McFarland questioned whether this is the action that the City really wants to take. She questioned whether such action would really lead to improvements. She asked whether the City really wants single-family dwellings going in that area, especially in the areas already developed in the area with 41 dwelling units per acre. Ms. McFarland discussed Proposition EE and stated that she has been a proponent of density reduction in the City since the 1970's. She agreed that some areas should be designated as single-family; however, other areas should be multiple-family. She asked that the City clarify the general plan and zoning. She noted that this process has been going on for many years now. She stressed that there must be logic in the planning of the City. She did not feel, however, that a pocket of single-family residences should be next to a commercial zone, regardless of what EE says. Larry Michaelson, attorney representing the SRM Number 4 Limited Partnership with property located at 2217 Monterey Avenue, addressed the Commission and asked in which area is 2217 Monterey. Chmn. Compton stated that it is in Area IA, which will be addressed after Area 1. L PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE12 Mike Laughton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission, stating that his property is actually in Area 1 B. He asked if it is the intention of the Commission, if this issue passes, to make all properties neither meeting the density nor zoning requirements nonconforming. Chmn. Compton stated that those properties would immediately become nonconforming. Cathy Nelson, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission, and stated that she agreed with the comments expressed by Ms. McFarland, noting that she objected to the rezone for the same reasons. She stated that she would expect to be compensated for the loss of property value in accordance with the new State law. Mr. Lough explained the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding just compensation. Public Hearing closed at 9:23 P .M. for testimony regarding Area 1. Comm. Rue noted that the responsibility of the Planning Commission is one of planning, rather than political. Based on that, and several other factors, such as the recycling of existing housing, he felt the proposed zone change would be detrimental because old houses will stay as long as possible. If bootlegs can be put in, they will be. This proposal would put single-family dwellings in a high-density area. This particular area is right in the midst of high density to the south and general commercial to the east and north, which is C-2. If it were C-1, he could see the argument for single-family dwellings and downzoning; however, the C-2 melds very nicely with the high density R-3. This would also limit new building heights. Based on these facts, he would very strongly argue against the staff recommendation to rezone from R-3 to R-2. He suggested that the general plan for this area be changed to high density. Comm. DeBellis stated that this issue very clearly underscores the lack of planning in this City. The fact that this area happens to be near downtown is incidental; this is probably no different from other inconsistent areas. If things were going to be done properly, the general plan would be studied in depth and it would be decided which areas should be left as is if that is what the people say they want. He agreed that the general plan and zoning should be consistent; however, it can't be both ways. A situation cannot exist where the goal is to reduce density yet people do not want to comply with the 17- foot setback requirement. Comm. DeBellis continued by expounding on the 17-foot setback requirement, stating that the requirement was enacted to alleviate the major problem of off-street parking in the City. He noted that the people voted to reduce density; therefore, that is what should be done. Comm. DeBellis stated that rezoning this area will not actually do anything; merely, it will do what should be done, and that is to make the zoning consistent with the general plan. Comm. DeBellis noted that only a few people attended this public hearing, stating that it is hard to believe from the turnout that very many people oppose this proposal. In fact, it would tend to lead one to believe that the proposal is actually favored by a majority of the people. Comm. DeBellis agreed that this is a dilemma; however, he noted that State law requires the general plan and zoning to be in conformance. He stated that this is what the people want; therefore, he will support the recommendation. L PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 13 Chmn. Compton stated that this particular area presents a problem for him. He stated that it is not known what the historical background of the zoning in this area is and how there came to be a small pocket of medium density in an area surrounded by high density. He personally felt this to be a mistake. Chmn. Compton felt that the Planning Commission should do what is best for the town, whether or not it is viewed as a political action. He stated that he would not base his decision on politics; rather, he felt that Council should be advised as to what the Commission feels to be the best recommendation in this particular area. He felt it is important to look at the long-term impacts. Chmn. Compton stated that the only zoning designation he felt comfortable with in this area is R-2B, which would be consistent with medium density. It would also be consistent with the entire section of town. He noted that the only differences are design differences. He stated that he would more apt to leave the zoning R-3 because it is more consistent with the commercial zone and its relationship to all of the rest of the high density zoning totally surrounding it. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to reject staff's recommendation to rezone Area 1 from R-3 to R-2; rather, that Area 1 should remain R-3. Further, that the Planning Commission suggest to the City Council that during the next general plan change, Area 1 be introduced as a candidate for redesignation from medium density to high density. Comm. DeBellis stated that he would oppose the motion, noting that only one out of 44 property owners appeared to oppose the downzoning. He stated that it is difficult for him to make a case against not lowering the zoning. He felt that the reason more people did not appear to oppose the recommendation is because tbe..y already have what they want on their property. Comm. DeBellis stated that he has difficulty with the idea that the Council should take special notice of this particular area. He felt that the recommendation proposed by staff is the only viable proposal. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis None Comms. lngell, Peirce Chmn. Compton stressed that property owners should take their concerns to the City Council on this particular area. He felt that more input would be very beneficial, noting that there is no historical background available on this area. AREA IA Mr. Schubach continued with the staff report dated January 12, 1988. He stated that according to the general plan, the subject area should be zoned R-2, two-family residential. Also, the rezoning would be in accordance with advisory measure EE. Based on the lot sizes, six, or half of the lots in this area, could have a maximum of two units per lot. If the other half of the lots were assembled in pairs, three units could be built on each pair. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE14 Of the existing 12 nonconforming units under the proposed R-2 zoning, 7 5 percent are older than 30 years, which as stated previously is considered an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. The remaining 25 percent are over 20 years old. It should be noted that staff is not sugges ting these nonconforming dwellings should be demolished, but staff is attempting to indicate that relatively new dwelling units which have not had an adequate amortization period are not being made prematurely nonconforming in many cases. Also, it should be noted that there are actually 13 lots; however, one lot has an easement for a sewer line running from the northeast to the southwest corner of the lot making it virtually an unbuildable lot. This lot is owned by the school district. Public Hearing for Area !A opened at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. There being no citizens appearing to speak either in favor of or in opposition to this matter, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to recommend that Area 1B be rezoned from R-3 to R-2. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: AREA lB Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comms. Ingell, Peirce Mr. Schubach continued with the staff report dated January 12, 1988. He stated that the total land area is 304,197 square feet. There are a total of 124 lots, of which the sizes vary. There are currently 279 dwelling units, with an average number of 2.25 units per lot. The existing density is 40. The existing zoning is R-3, multiple-family residential with a general plan designation of medium density. The potential number of units under the current R-3 zoning ordinance (1,320 square feet per unit) is 195; the potential number of units under the previous R-3 zoning ordinance (1,089 square feet per unit) is 250. The potential number of units under the proposed R-2 zone change (1,750 square feet per unit by ordinance) would be 139. There are 44 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-3 ordinance. There are 58 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance. Thirteen units have been constructed in the last ten years; 26 units have been constructed in the last 20 years; and 71 units have been constructed in the last 30 years. There are 169 units constructed more than 30 years ago. The surrounding uses are essentially residential. The zoning is a mix of R-1, R-2, and R- 3. The surrounding general plan designations are a mix of low density, medium density, and high density. As in the other two subject areas, the general plan indicates that the area should be zoned R-2. Also, rezoning to R-2 would be consistent with advisory measure EE. Only 60 percent of the lots within the area are over 30 years old. However, adding those which are over 20 years old, the percentage jumps to 86 percent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE15 As with other areas, lots could be assembled to generate additional units. However, it should be noted that 98 of 124 lots would be too small to have more than one unit. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission had received a letter from someone who wanted to do a remodel in this area. He asked what affect the zone change would have on remodels in the area. Mr. Schubach stated that the property owner would be unaffected if he had obtained a vesting tentative map. On the other hand, this proposal still needs to go before the City Council. It would take approximately two and a months before the ordinance becomes effective. If the property owner has obtained building permits or is in the process of construction, he can still go forward with the project. If the person has not met these requirements, he could request a grandfather clause at the City Council level. Mr. Lough continued by explaining legal points in regard to this matter. He also discussed the issue of "substantial funds" expended on a project as a criterion for allowing a project to commence. Public Hearing on Area 1B opened at 9:47 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Michael Laughton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He asked for clarification on the issue of nonconforming buildings in this area. Mr. Schubach explained what would become nonconforming. Mr. Laughton continued by discussing what would be nonconforming, stating that if this is enacted, all buildings in the area would become nonconforming. Mr. Laughton stated that he was appalled at the lack of speakers who attended this meeting, noting that millions of dollars in property value is at stake. He felt that more people did not appear because they already have what they want. Those who are not building are being unrewarded. Mr. Laughton discussed the topography in this area, stating that most of the lots are on a gradient. Most people develop to maximize their views. Mr. Laughton stated that his concern is that he has a project in the works, and he hoped that it would be approved if this ordinance becomes effective. He stated that he is waiting for approval of his building permit. He stated that he wished this action had occurred sooner. Mr. Laughton stated that if he must conform to the proposed R-2 requirements, his project would need to be substantiall y modified. He noted that many requirements must be met when a project is proposed, and he continued by discussing the various limits enforced in the City. Mr. Laughton stated that he would be disadvantaged in terms of lifestyle if he is unable to go to two stories because his project would be face a wall on either side. Mr. Laughton stated that there would be significant loss of property value if this proposal is enacted. Mr. Laughton concluded by stating that he only wants the Commission to make a fair decision and to consider the individual when making its decision. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 16 Chmn. Compton noted that density would not be changed via this proposal, only design standards. Chmn. Compton noted that there are other options available to the Commission. He continued by discussing the viability of an R-2C zone whereby development standards in a given zone would be retained, but density would be maintained at the medium density level. Comm. DeBellis asked whether Mr. Laughton would have appeared before the Commission if he had already obtained his building permit. Mr. Laughton stated t hat he would have appeared to discuss this issue, whether or not he was doing a projec t. He continued by discussing his philosophical viewpoint of the situation . He stated that he desires to live in Hermosa Beach, and he feels a person should be able to develop his/her property in order to enhance his/her investment. Larry Michaelson, 23545 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 206, Torrance, attorney, addressed the Commission. He stated that he represents Steven R. Mitchell as general partner of SRM No. 4 Limited Partnership. He asked for clarification on the location of 2217 Monterey, which is the property owned by his client. Mr. Schubach stated that 2217 Monterey is not actually in Area 1B; the client received notice of this hearing because all residents within 300 square feet are notified. Mr. Michaelson noted that even though his client's property is not directly affected, he wanted to state his position in regard to this matter. He stated that he was concerned over the discussion regarding philosophical positions in this matter. He also noted concern over the mention of the number of people appearing t&speak on this issue. Mr. Michaelson stated that he is somewhat dismayed over the current trend of thinking. He did not feel that the number of people supporting or opposing this issue should weigh very heavily on the decision-making process of the Commission. Mr. Michaelson stated that this issue is one of a taking of rights. He stated that the Commission must decide what is ''best" for a certain area. He stated that the future trend of the law should be away from the unbridled discretion which has been given governmental action in this regulat ion area in the past. He stated that there will certainly be more cases regarding this taking issue. He felt that the recent decisions are an example of a relaxation of that tren d away from that unbridled governmental action, Mr. Michaelson stated that his position is that he would challenge the findings on this issue as to the general plan. He would challenge the timeliness of those findings. He would challenge the necessity of another EIR. If his client is impacted by such ruling, he would certainly seek compensation to the furthest legally possible extent. Mr. Michaelson stated that he would like to reserve any constitutional challenge until the appropriate forum, which he did not believe the Planning Commission is. Mr. Michaelson stated in conclusion that he would suggest that any person involved in any Commission or Council voting on this issue who is the owner or interested beneficiary of any property of R-2 or greater should abstain from voting on such issue. Ron Vollmer, 934 Duncan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission. He discussed the comments made by Mr. Laughton, stating that Mr. Laughton has just spent PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE17 $25,000 designing a house and was given R-3 guidelines. He felt that Mr. Laughton could lose everything; therefore, he felt there should be a period of time to act as a buffer for people who have spent a great deal of money designing a project only to have the requirements change. Mr. Vollmer asked for clarification on what happens when a nonconforming structure burns down or is otherwise destroyed. Chmn. Compton stated that if a nonconforming structure is destroyed by more than 50 percent, it cannot be rebuilt as a nonconforming structure; it must be rebuilt to conform with current standards. Public Hearing on Area 1B closed at 10:15 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue asked about the differences between R-2 and R-2B. Chmn. Compton stated that the nuances are very tightly-knit between R-2 and R-2B. The main difference is in R-2B the units must be a little larger than R-2. The setback requirements are essentially the same for both zones. Also, the height is the same for R- 2 and R-2B. Chmn. Compton continued by discussing the reasoning behind having an R-2B zoning designation, stating that the purpose was to allow for an owners' unit with a rental at the rear which could be smaller to be on the property. He noted, though, that the unit was to be of a certain size. Chmn. Compton felt that an R-2C zone could be created just as easily as R-2B, allowing for the klnd of development standards now in place in most aLthis area and still affect the density, which is what EE is all about. He noted that many people are concerned about bulk; however, the bulk is already existing, and the impact created by an R-2C zone would be quite minimal. Chmn. Compton stated that he would have a tendency in this area to look at something such as an R-2C zone. He suggested that a motion be fashioned allowing for the creation of a new zone. Comm. Rue questioned what the chances of creating a new R-2C zone actually are. He felt that such a zone is a viable option to mitigate certain problems in the area. Comm. DeBellis did not think it is possible to create such a new zone. He felt that each of the staff recommendations would be passed by council. He continued by discussing the political realities involved in such a matter. Comm. DeBellis continued by discussing EE, stating that he felt if it were put on the ballot today, it would pass overwhelmingly. Comm. Rue suggested that the Commission proceed and act as a planning body. Chmn. Compton asked what would be necessary in order for the Commission to recommend a new zoning designation. Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commission direct staff to study the matter and bring it back as a special study to amend or modify standards, or have a zone which is R-2 density but has modified standards of some sort. After the Commission review, if a text PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE18 amendment is voted in, staff could then be requested to return with a text amendment and a public hearing could be scheduled. The text amendment could then be adopted and recommended to the City Council. Chmn. Compton noted concern over the timing involved in this matter. Mr. Schubach suggested, then, that the Commission approve the R-2 zoning. He noted that the Commission may always add to the R-2 zoning at a future time. Further, the Commission can direct staff to consider standards at a later date. Comm. DeBellis suggested that this issue be discussed at the upcoming Planning Commission/City Council subcommittee meetin g. Depending on the feedback, the Commiss ion could decide whether or not to direct staff to proceed with this matter. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to recommend to the City Council that this issue be studied further at the subcommittee mei~ting. He noted that he would not want this issue to get tossed aside at this point. He felt that this particular area is important to many people. Comm. DeBellis stated that it is not possible to condition zoning. Comm. Rue agreed; however, he wanted to make a recommendation that the issue be studied further. Mr. Lough suggested that the Commission make a decision on what is before the Commission. Alternatives can then be addressed as a separate matter. He noted that there are certain requirements regarding noticing and agendaized items. ""',-.•- Chmn. Compton questioned whether the Commission could send a recommendation to the Council regarding this issue of various zoning. Mr. Lough replied in the negative; however, he stated that the Commission could begin the process now if desired. Chmn. Compton stated that he did not necessarily feel uncomfortable rezoning Area 1B to R-2; however, he strongly felt that a new zone should be created. He felt that whatever process can be started tonight to begin action on this matter, should be started. Mr. Lough stated that the Commission could direct staff to begin studying the issue. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-9, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS DESCRIBED ON THE MAPS ATTACHED TO THE RESOLUTION, with the amendment that Lines 14, 15, and 16 (Area 1) therein be deleted from the Resolution. Further, to approve the negative declaration. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comms. Ingell, Peirce PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE19 MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to direct staff to study the possibility of a new zone labeled R-2C which would encompass some of the design standards of R-3; specifically related to building height, number of floors, and setbacks. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis None Comms. Ingell, Peirce Comm. DeBellis disagreed with the statements made by Mr. Michaelson, and stated that he felt the low turnout of interested parties would indicate that the general feeling of the community is in fact correct; and that there is a need to reduce density in the City. He further disagreed with the statements Mr. Michaelson made regarding the need for an environmental impact report, stating that when density is being reduced it is difficult to make the required findings. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING OPEN SPACE DEFINITION, LOCATION, AND COMPUTATION AND POLICY STATEMENT 87-3 REGARDING COVERAGE OF OPEN SPACE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Mr. Schubach suggested that this item be continued to the next meeting, noting that two Commissioners were absent. Chmn. Compton agreed that he would prefer to have all the Commissioners present before addressing this issue. Comm. DeBeliis asked about something which was not covered in the staff report; that item being the possibility of allowing at least a percentage of the setback in the 17-foot setback to count as open space. He suggested that staff study the issue further, noting that this option would certainly make the setback requirement more palatable to a number of people. Mr. Schubach stated that he will prepare a memo on this suggestion. The issue could then be discussed by the Commission at a future meeting. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the first meeting in February. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS CORRESPONDENCE FROM JACK WOOD, TRIAD DEVELOPMENT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 14, 1988. He stated that there is a question involving three lots at Hill Street and Ardmore which are zoned R-1. A condominium development was proposed on those lots; however, the condominium approval is now null and void. The zoning ordinance has changed to prohibit condominium developments in the R-1 zone. Further, Hill Street has been vacated. Lot 24, therefore, no longer has appropriate frontage on Hill Street. Mr. Schubach noted that the vacation of Hill Street was approved; however, the condominiums were never built. Therefore, only two houses can be built at this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 20 F location. Staff is uncertain as to where the frontage of Lot 24 is, and believes that a variance to the front setback would be necessary. He noted that the person interested in buying this property has been informed that he should go to the Planning Commission to request an interpretation in regard to the development of all three lots; otherwise, staff would recommend that a two-lot development would be acceptable. Mr. Schubach stated that the question is whether this is a two-lot or three-lot development; if it is deemed to be three lots, the question then becomes the location of the front setback on Lot 24 and where the access is to the third lot. Chmn. Compton noted that there is a 25-foot setback on Hill Street, stating that it is an irregularly-shaped lot. He stated that there are three legally-described lots in question. The general plan states that any legally-described lot can be developed whether or not it has any street frontage, so long as the required parking can be provided. Mr. Schubach stated that the question is where the frontage is for Lot 24. He stated that there is no street; the area was dedicated as a bike path. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He explained the history of this property, stating that this is an unusual piece of property. He stated that all of Hill Street was dedicated as a bike path. He discussed the participation of the Sunnyglenn Corporation in relation to this issue. Comm. DeBellis stated that he felt this vacated street is actually no different from a walk street. Mr. Wood and the Commissioners discussed the definition of "frontage." Mr. Wood stated that it is the intention to build three houses on these three lots. Mr. Wood and the Commissioners discussed the vehicle access and the required 17-foot setback requirement. Mr. Wood stated that the driveways will be off of Hill Street. The interpretation given by the Commission will determine the actual placement of the houses. Mr. Schubach noted that the Building Director was also uncertain as to the location of the frontage of Lot 24. He suggested that this item be continued so that staff can return with a report on the location of the frontage in question. He noted that the City Attorney would also like to study the code in regard to this issue. Mr. Lough stated that he would like to discuss this matter with the Building Director, noting that he did not wish to set a precedent in this case without first studying all the issues. Mr. Wood stated that to continue this matter would cause an undue delay in this project. He asked what a continuance would accomplish. Mr. Lough stated that a continuance was merely a suggestion. If the Commission feels comfortable about making a decision tonight, that is acceptable. Chmn. Compton noted that the frontage of both Lots 23 and 25 is on Ardmore A venue. He felt that Lot 24 fronts on Hill. He felt it is a question of whether or not the front yard actually includes the 63-foot length. -, , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 21 Mr. Wood stated that the code says the narrowest lot line is the front yard. He stated that a case could not be made to oppose that concept. Comm. DeBellis felt that the frontage of both Lots 24 and 25 is off of Hill, because that is the shortest dimension in both cases. There would be access to the garage for Lot 24 from Hill Street. Mr. Wood noted the high cost of plans. He asked how the project could be approved without further problems. He asked how it would be possible to get someone to physically commit to a decision in this case. He did not want to design a house that does not fit. Comm. DeBellis stated that an interpretation needs to be in writing. He suggested that staff present something to the Commission to approve. Comm. DeBellis stated that he would have preferred a staff recommendation. Chmn. Compton noted that the City has created this situation, stating that the frontage at one time was on Hill Street before the street vacation. He would like to see the frontage moved out and have it remain the frontage. The frontage for Lots 24 and 25 would essentially be the bike path. Lot 23 would front on Ardmore. Access would be from big Hill and Ardmore. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to determine that the frontage for both Lots 24 and 25 is on the bike path; the frontage of Lot 23 is on Ardmore. No objections; so ordered. The Planning Commissioners received the following: • City Council minutes of December 15, 1987 • Southwest Area Planning Council Meeting information Mr. Schubach stated that the Southwest Area Planning Council Meeting will be quite beneficial, and he recommended that everyone attend. He noted that money is available in the budget for each of the Commissioners to attend. Chmn. Compton and Comm. Rue both stated that they would like to attend, but they noted that they would each pay their own admission. Comm. DeBellis also stated that he would like to attend. Mr. Schubach stated he would call Comms. Peirce and Ingell to inform them of the Southwest Area Planning Council Meeting. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed various issues to be addressed at the Planning Commission/City Council subcommittee meeting. Issues for consideration include, but are not limited to: parking structure downtown; CBD grants; 17-foot setback; streetscape; expansion of Vehicle Parking District; alternate zoning in conjunction with downzoning; computer analysis of business potential in regard to economic development objectives and downtown development; residential building and .. I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 19, 1988 PAGE 22 zoning; circulation element; multi-use corridor; design review board; open space requirements for R-1 lots; and conditional use permits for establishments selling alcoholic beverages. • Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the issue of CBD grant monies and monies not earmarked for any particular project. Susan McFarland 31 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and discussed the issue of the 17-foot setback requirement and its relationship to alleys and walk streets. She stated that it makes no sense to have large open space areas facing alleys. Chmn. Compton stated that he would call the Planning Director to inform him of the order of priority for these suggested topics. Comm. DeBellis suggested that applicants be informed of the next step in the process before they leave a Planning Commiss ion meeting. He noted that many applicants are unaware of what will happen next in the process. Comm. DeBellis asked for an update on the Pavilion Project. Chmn. Compton asked for and update on property owned by Mrs. Wilma Burt. Chmn. Compton asked for a status report on the project being done by Mr. and Mrs. Shea. He asked the Planning Director to call them to let them know time is running short. Chmn. Compton asked for information on the status of conditional use permit reviews. Mr. Schubach stated that the CUP reports will be presented to the Commission on a monthly basis. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:40 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Com mission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of January 19, 1988. pton, Chairman